Specifications:Close Range correction (CRC) system provides high performance at both near and far focusing distances.
Superb optical design for architecture, wedding and landscape photography.
Close-Range Correction for distortion-free pictures as close as 0.85 feet.

I have read some of the reviews on the internet and they all pick up on valid points and concerns regarding this little Gem of a lens.
If you troll the internet looking at review after review after review you will find many reasons not buy this lens.

For budding photographers spending their hard earn'd cash on a lens they want to own for years and enjoy the results of, it is not easy to persuade those with little or no experience of a given lens to spend their cash, if negative reviews that only focus on lab results are the only thing they have to go by.

Here are the facts concerning the Nikon 20mm 2.8d

Firstly - it is light, small, well built with wonderful glass incorporated within it, when you know how to use it.
Secondly - yes in the corners it is a little soft when used at anything other than mid range apertures, I could pick fault with any lens if i wished to.
Thirdly - yes it is a little noisy when using auto focus, so what, its not that noisy, use it in manual then, where you will find the focusing barrel to be lovely and smooth to use, in low light is when you will need the auto focus most, and so what if it is a little noisy, the auto focus is fast and snappy and very accurate,

I have owned mine for a few years now and use it on my d800, when used creatively this little Gem of a lens sparkles, Its resolution in the center wide open is remarkably sharp, contrast levels are superb, and everything just gets better and better all the way up to f11, after which diffraction starts to take its toll on Image quality.

If you want to spend your life reading lab results and reviews from people picking endless faults with everything in life then you will miss out on what this wonderful little lens is capable of.
On the other hand if you are type of person who just wants to get out there into the BIG WIDE world this lens will bring to you, then get out there and enjoy it.

Don't worry about the lenses distortion, use it to be creative, it is easily corrected for architectural photography if needed.
Remember, your camera is a tool, and so are your lenses, a bad workman will always blame his tools.

Use this little lens with thoughtfulness and creativity and it will defiantly not disappoint.
Learn its strengths and rejoice in them, I do with mine :-)

I want you to understand what this little Gem is capable of.
Buy, cherish, and enjoy :-)

Regards
Steve

Apr 14, 2016

Mark KOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 15, 2003Location: ChinaPosts: 424

Review Date: Jul 15, 2013

Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5

Pros:

Small size, light weight

Cons:

Expensive, poor contrast and resolution

Dreamed as I have my very first one using on F90X...and at that time this one was so good I urged myself going for a Minolta version
Well entering the digital age newer cameras like D700, D800 demands better optics. This one should be placed in the museum.

Jul 15, 2013

jessi74OfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 22, 2008Location: United StatesPosts: 3

Review Date: Nov 5, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 6

Pros:

Compact.

Cons:

Softer than I'd like; even on DX.

Nov 5, 2011

mauriceramirezOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 16, 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 2948

Review Date: Jul 13, 2009

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Very compact, very fast AF.

Cons:

Soft with more distant objects wide open.

I love this lens. Not quite as sharp as a 17-35, and a couple notches down from the 14-24, but still a lens that results in better pictures simply because of its size and weight.

Jul 13, 2009

eolakeOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 30, 2006Location: United KingdomPosts: 10

Review Date: Sep 23, 2008

Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros:

Sharp if stopped down. Compact.

Cons:

Bad corners at large apertures.

I apologize for my first review of this lens, I don't know what I was on. Cough medicine maybe.
Actually both my copies are fine if stopped down two stops. But if not, the corners are just smeared badly. And this is even on a reduced-frame camera (D200), so it's not acceptable to me. I think an F:2.8 lens should be good at F:2.8.
(I would lower my rating, except the site does not seem to allow to change it, sorry.)

Construction could be better, not all copies are fine at borders wide open.

For those still loving primes (light weight, compact size, sharpness)

Aug 7, 2008

mdarntonOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 21, 2008Location: United StatesPosts: 38

Review Date: Mar 23, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Sharp, sharp, sharp. Very flare resistant.

Cons:

Larger than it needs to be, in my opinion.

Coming from Leica and Olympus film cameras, I'm used to 21mm lenses that are quite a bit smaller than this one. It's only small in comparison with modern bloated zooms, which I won't carry around at all. Nevertheless, it's the sharpest W/A I've ever had, especially at f4. There must be some variation in these lenses--I was a bit scared to buy it, based on these reviews, but mine is excellent. It doesn't like stopping down too far, which is common with the W/As I've had, but to make up for it, I can't get it to flare under any conditions. Even against the light, shadow detail is strong and contrasty.

My favorite lengths are 21 and 28mm, and now I have a 20 on film, and a 30 on DSLR. That's really not a bad deal, all things considered.

Too bad about all the plastic (I particularly don't like the printed rather than engraved markings and the plastic window), but I guess it's proven itself over time.

Mar 23, 2008

panos.vOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 15, 2005Location: United KingdomPosts: 4110

Review Date: Oct 18, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Small, light, sharp, fast, nice contrast.

Cons:

None really!

An excellent little lens. I used it for discreet wide-angle shooting with my D70s. This is a fantastic lens, small, light, sharp and f/2.8. Contrast is lacking a bit at f/2.8 and there is a bit of vignetting and lower sharpness around the corners but it all goes away by f/3.5. In any case, I find it excellent for real-world shooting, especially in dimly lit internal areas. It also makes a great outdoors lens for street/travel shooting.

Oct 18, 2006

rootriderOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 1, 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 12

Review Date: Jul 16, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 6

Pros:

cheap compared to the 18mm 2.8, 'wide enough' on digital though not nearly as fun as with film, good wide open, very compact, AF-D version focuses quickly, very little flare

Cons:

softness or diffraction starting at around f/5 - f/7 on my lens, not as wide as I'd like on digital, there are better primes out there. Almost unnoticeable vignetting wide open in very bright conditions even on a digital body.

First off, I'm quite sure that I don't have the best example of this lens here. When I first got it I did a lot of shooting wide open and was loving the results. But when I started stopping the lens down a bit (like f/5.6) I saw some really bad diffraction or softness, especially where there's bright light.

Other than the above issue I love the lens. It's fast, small, relatively cheap, pretty wide, and has a nice warm color rendition that I kind of like compared to my 18-70 and 70-210. The lens hood can get in the way of an onboard flash and gives you less room to work with the focusing ring, but you really don't need to use the hood except when shooting in the worst light. I've yet to see any lens flare when using this lens with the hood.

I have however seen a slight hint of vignetting when shooting wide open in very bright conditions, even on my digital body. This wasn't something I was expecting to see... but it's barely there and likely not a problem for most any digital shooter who wants to use this lens.

My understanding is that the 24 or 28mm 2.8 lenses are better overall lenses than this 20mm 2.8, but if you're looking for a wide prime that's cheap and relatively sharp then this is the lens for you. The Nikon primes double or triple in price once you get to 18mm and wider, and 24mm and narrower is too close to the fov of a 35mm lens on a film body. This is the sweet spot in value for wide Nikon primes.

Jul 16, 2006

williamkazakOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 8, 2006Location: United StatesPosts: 6441

Review Date: Jun 8, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 7

Pros:

Fairly compact even with a shade.Inexpensive compared to the 18mm.

Cons:

Flare outdoors in backlit situations and dj lights at a wedding reception.

This is a nice wide angle for film and compact.A great digital lens for an indoor high speed shooters kit in combination with the the Nikon 35mm F2 and the 50mm F1.4.
I trust this lens over any zoom I have used.

Jun 8, 2006

eolakeOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 30, 2006Location: United KingdomPosts: 10

Review Date: Feb 6, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Sharp, compact.

Cons:

Not much.

First, to Tiesge: The sharpness of the lens is not affected by the ISO setting. It is just the camera introduces noise.

I have two of this lens. One of them is not sharp. I bought it used, but it looks new, so this was disappointing. So I "bit the green apple" as we say in Denmark, and bought another, this one from new. And from early testing, this one is indeed very sharp.

Feb 6, 2006

PavelOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 10, 2003Location: United StatesPosts: 5417

Review Date: Jan 8, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $360.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

very small and pretty sharp both near and far. good minimum focus distance.

Cons:

not as sharp as some of the zooms like the 17-55 wide open.

pretty good performer and marvelously small. I like the 30mm effective focal lenght of the lens on digital. There are no image problems that I see - but on the other hand it doesn't stand out as a fantastic lens neither. Glad I got it.

Jan 8, 2006

markgoldbergOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 27, 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 11

Review Date: Dec 6, 2005

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Great optics, fun to use, produces shots of great impact

Cons:

Vignetting from filter

I had this lens in my film era and it was a favorite. For travelling light, I took a medium zoom plus this one, and I could do a wide range of things. The wide and plus 2.8 fstop made it great for existing light interiors. It was dynamite with a polarizer and made for some great church interior shots, too.

I speak past tense because in digital, it became a 30mm equivalent and I needed something wider. It was replaced by a 12-24dx as my working wide angle. For travelling light, I now take an 18-70 plus a 10.5DX fisheye for interiors.

I should have gotten a thin filter. With a regular filter, you will get some corner vignetting and small f-stops.

This is a great choice for 35mm photography, but it doesn't fit in my digital picture and I am sure it has a great home with its new owner.

Dec 6, 2005

mskadOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 20, 2002Location: United StatesPosts: 115

Review Date: Mar 14, 2005

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $375.00
| Rating: 6

Pros:

Compact, light.

Cons:

A bit soft, even stopped down (D70 and D100)

The lens is really small, great build quality and relatively fast (f/2.8). But I was a bit surprised to see that the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX AF-S zoom is sharper at all f/stop, with better contrast and color. On the other hand, the 20mm f/2.8 exhibits less CA.

Used with D70 and D100.

Mar 14, 2005

robinngOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 1, 2003Location: MalaysiaPosts: 47

Review Date: Jan 14, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8

Pros:

SHARP, LIGHT WEIGHT & FAST FOCUS

Cons:

IS A VERY GOOD LENSE FOR DSLR,
I USED IT TO SHOOT WEDDING, INTERIOR.
ALL TURN OUT VERY GOOD RESULT!

Jan 14, 2004

tgieskeOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 9, 2002Location: United StatesPosts: 270

Review Date: Oct 29, 2003

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $409.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Very useful for portrait plus background or street and stage action shots.

Cons:

Can't seem to make it be sharp

Better than my old G2 wide angle zoom for shooting exteriors and interiors of houses for my wife's real estate business. Reasonably sharp at 200-400 ISO in daylight. But in clubs, sharpness deteriorates at 1600 and 3200 with my D100 for concert acts.

Maybe this is because I shoot with spot focus rather than matrix focus. And it can be repaired with Neat Image reasonably well. Unsharp mask doesnt do much good.

Wish I knew why this is, since most reports call it a sharp lens.

Distortion is negligible, and only gets worse when I fix it with Panotool lens curve.